Why Trump will be a good president for America.

a reply to: seagull

Every American advocating for a serious third (or more) party vote needs to be aware of the following.

Third parties are not a choice at the national level, because our system of voting and power sharing (Constitution) are not set up for it.

We have a winner-takes-all voting system. Let's say we allow a full slate of different candidates at the national level; rather than a POTUS elected with what we traditionally expect for the most votes, we could end up with a POTUS elected by a small minority of votes. We would end up with a POTUS who 80% of the people do not want.

The problem we face nowadays is because one party has allowed itself to become asymmetrical and refuses to compromise. American govt was not set up for that; we are not England's Parliamentary system.

in the typical parliamentary system, the opposition party can criticize and oppose all they want — in fact, that’s what they’re supposed to do. But the party or coalition in power — by rule — has the votes it needs to pass its bills and the executive authority to implement them (since the executive branch is headed by the prime minister, who is both a member of Parliament and the leader of the governing party).

But in the American-style system, with a bicameral Congress and an independently elected president who can veto bills with which he disagrees, it is very often the case, as at present, that no party has the votes to pass its bills without the compromise/cooperation of the other party.

source

It would take years to develop third or more parties at the local level, and a change in our voting system, for the idea of more than two viable parties for POTUS to be anything more than an easy fantasy.

For the sake of decency, I will just paste the minimum here, but the article is an interesting read.

America is for a-holes: Inside the secret to Donald Trump’s success

I don’t know why I had to go apoplectic to get them to make good on their product. It was a lemon with previous problems, but instead of doing the right thing, they waited to see how big an asshole I would be about it. I knew the game, so I gave with gusto. In America, you can’t get ahead unless you’re willing to be one, and as a society we’re reaping the rewards of the asshole ethic in the marketplace, social interactions and especially in our politics. I was especially struck watching the last GOP debate that there seems to be no downside to being the biggest and most ignorant prick on the planet — and in fact the biggest assholes seem to suck up the most benefit.

Citizens are neither consumers nor shareholders, although it has taken a couple decades to brainwash us we are. Then we were brainwashed to believe that "corporations exist only to serve the interests of shareholders". Finally, we were brainwashed to believe that govt should be run as a corporation.

How Milton Friedman Fomented the Barmy “Corporations Exist to Maximize Shareholder Value” Myth

One of my pet peeves is the degree to which the notion that corporations exist only to serve the interests of shareholders is accepted as dogma and recited uncritically by the business press. I’m old enough to remember when that was idea would have been considered extreme and reckless. Corporations are a legal structure and are subject to a number of government and contractual obligations and financial claims. Equity holders are the lowest level of financial claim. It’s one thing to make sure they are not cheated, misled, or abused, but quite another to take the position that the last should be first.

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: seagull

Every American advocating for a serious third (or more) party vote needs to be aware of the following.

Third parties are not a choice at the national level, because our system of voting and power sharing (Constitution) are not set up for it.

We have a winner-takes-all voting system. Let's say we allow a full slate of different candidates at the national level; rather than a POTUS elected with what we traditionally expect for the most votes, we could end up with a POTUS elected by a small minority of votes. We would end up with a POTUS who 80% of the people do not want.

The problem we face nowadays is because one party has allowed itself to become asymmetrical and refuses to compromise. American govt was not set up for that; we are not England's Parliamentary system.

in the typical parliamentary system, the opposition party can criticize and oppose all they want — in fact, that’s what they’re supposed to do. But the party or coalition in power — by rule — has the votes it needs to pass its bills and the executive authority to implement them (since the executive branch is headed by the prime minister, who is both a member of Parliament and the leader of the governing party).

But in the American-style system, with a bicameral Congress and an independently elected president who can veto bills with which he disagrees, it is very often the case, as at present, that no party has the votes to pass its bills without the compromise/cooperation of the other party.

source

It would take years to develop third or more parties at the local level, and a change in our voting system, for the idea of more than two viable parties for POTUS to be anything more than an easy fantasy.

Nothing will ever change if you don't start #ing changing them.

a reply to: eNumbra

Agree. But the change to a viable American 3rd+ party (remember, America, unlike European or other countries, does not have viable 3rd or more parties at the moment) means years of working from the local level on up, proving that a third+ party can govern effectively. That, plus changing the voting allocation.

What has changed America has been movements outside of politics that push from the outside to force elected leaders. That is what America is about. We have the right to bring change from the outside.

If one wants a Green or Libertarian candidate or any of the dozens of other parties AND you accept their party platform, then start by working at the local level.

Currently, the Green and Libertarian parties are in most states, then join the parties and work inside the party to prove they can govern first at the local level.

a reply to: desert

All that is true, outside pressure is what has always driven political change here.

But it's also time for there to be a, as you say, viable third, even fourth party politically.

It's not going to take hold over night, it's probably going to take years, decades even. ...and it'll begin, has to begin, locally, maybe state.

But when the electorate is as lazy as America's has become? Lazy and apathetic. I'm not sure we have in ourselves, as a whole, to change things.

Threads extolling the virtues of Hillary Clinton? Threads doing the same for Donald Trump? Virtually none that explore the possibility of other alternatives...

We, or many of us, recognize there are issues, yet we send the same ol' tired ass stuff to Washington DC. Hillary brings us the retread sixties/seventies rhetoric which I've not noticed a great whoppin' lot of success with. Donald brings us the retread 40's and 50's warmed over jingoistic nationalism of my grand parents and parents.

Where's the differences that each are trying so fervently to say will be present when they're elected? I don't see it. Which is why I refuse to vote for 'em.

I know Johnson stand little chance, 'cause in stark reality, he's not all that different...but he's enough different to attract my attention, and my support. But my attention is local, and state, 'cause as you pointed out, that's where the change will start. That's where it has to start.

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: eNumbra

Agree. But the change to a viable American 3rd+ party (remember, America, unlike European or other countries, does not have viable 3rd or more parties at the moment) means years of working from the local level on up, proving that a third+ party can govern effectively. That, plus changing the voting allocation.

What has changed America has been movements outside of politics that push from the outside to force elected leaders. That is what America is about. We have the right to bring change from the outside.

If one wants a Green or Libertarian candidate or any of the dozens of other parties AND you accept their party platform, then start by working at the local level.

Currently, the Green and Libertarian parties are in most states, then join the parties and work inside the party to prove they can govern first at the local level.

You keep talking, but all I keep hearing is someone telling me to just wait a little long, or start from the bottom.
I keep hearing that I shouldn't bother voting for a third party because the third party hasn't earned their way to the "big prize".

I maintain that their "viability" isn't the issue, it's too many idiots who openly admit both candidates are trash but continue to make excuses to not vote for a third party. Organizing at the local level won't change anything if the level of apathy and ignorance continues even in a situation in which voting for a third party is such an obvious option.

Oh they're "not going to win"? What do I care? Are American egos so large they have to be on the winning team all the ti- you know what, don't answer that.

a reply to: DBCowboy
I don't think you understand what socialism is, do you?

a reply to: seagull
a reply to: eNumbra

Yes, apathy and ignorance. Maybe this election is finally a wake up call to citizens and voting.

It is frustrating. This election is about overturning decades of the Reagan Revolution. We do need a Bernie Revolution, but I know damned well that it won't come through the Republican Party. Bernie understands that, which is why he worked through the Democratic Party. His intention is not for people to give up but to do the hard work, a movement not a moment, that needs to be done for a fundamental change to occur, to un-rig the system. It requires more than just a vote to retake the Presidency, as there are other branches involved. One POTUS vote is necessary but not sufficient to un-rig the system.

If you want to work to build multi-party, that's one way. If others want to put their work into re-building, un-rigging, the system, that's another way, Bernie's way. Either way will not produce quick results. As seagull said, "years, decades even".

Over and out.

a reply to: DBCowboy

#1 worst thing Hillary has done = Haiti

#1 Worst thing Clinton will do when elected = TPP

Trump is the only choice. She MUST be stopped.

a reply to: desert

Yes, the Bernie way. Shilling for Hillary, lying to his supporters, and then telling everyone to vote for Hillary.

Come on, I know Bernie said a lot of nice stuff, but when do you move past it and realize he fooled you and everyone else?


Stabbed in the BACK!

I don't think any of the two candidates, can change the course of America.

I believe the following about Trump. His words and views represent the majority of the population and better represent American values. Regardless what you think of him as a person, Clinton is about changing American into something "different". Trump is for keeping America to its values, standards and morals. Or maybe I should say get America back on the right road after rumbling its tires in the grass of extreme liberalism.

For that reason alone...I would vote for Trump.